Consumers: Whingers

I think the key issue is one of expectations. People expect to be able to afford everything they want, and expect that everything they think they need, they do actually need.

You don’t need everything you think you do. The first photo associated with the linked to story above is a good example.

You don’t need to eat meat with every meal. Beans are a cheap and easy source of protein. Even a single boiled egg will give you enough.

You don’t need to eat dairy. You can get all the stuff in dairy from other sources. That includes calcium. In fact, especially calcium.

You don’t need to eat tinned goods. Most tinned goods can be made yourself at a much-reduced cost. Watties spaghetti is effectively a luxury. You can make it yourself with spaghetti and real tomatoes.

I could go on.

Yes, the rising cost of foods should be a concern to everyone. But only in as much as they need to think about what they’re eating. Don’t just go, <cue waving of arms and running in circles>”SWEET JESUS!!! BUTTER IS HUGELY EXPENSIVE!!” Just stop eating it.

Look, screw Fonterra. This is a market economy, and if Fonterra thinks it can force you to buy their product at inflated prices, they’re wrong. Their are plenty of substitutes on the shelf at a much-reduced price. When they see their sales dropping, they’ll think about dropping their prices. Unless China buys everything. In which case you were behind the eight-ball in the first place…

Another way to look at it is that most of the things we used to think of as staples are now luxuries. Sound tough, but adjusting your diet isn’t actually all that difficult. Food is still plentiful and no-one is going to starve (except the poor, who have always starved). You just have to start seeing butter as a want, not a need.

Finally, think about volume control. Are you actually eating too much to begin with? If so, then maybe high prices are actually doing you a favour… So cut back on high-sugar, high-fat luxuries, and rethink your staples. Maybe a little more fibre, a little more leafy greens.

Yes, greens are also increasing in price. But not as much as beef, butter and chicken.

but you’re clouding the issue by focussing on preferences. what i posted about was want versus need. the newspapers are shouting about people being worse off because they’re not able to afford their needs, and how “it’s a problem”.

I’m not clouding the issue as you put it forward – you said that the key issue of increasing food prices is expectations. That people can economise doesn’t make their reduced standard of living not the key issue. I’d spoken about preferences since you said that preferences didn’t matter because they were based on “fallacious conventional wisdoms” and I was making the point they are a real consideration.

And can you point to any papers “shouting about people being worse off because they’re not able to afford their needs” the article you link to doesn’t, all I’ve seen are generally like the ones Robyn noted – just saying things are getting tougher – that’s undeniable.

Calling people whingers for simply saying they’re worse off than they were before seems a bit unreasonable.

butter is only a staple because it has been a huge surplus for decades. there can be as much waving of the arms about prices as people like, but alternatives are available that don’t impact their precious middle-class way of life.

People are entitled to whinge when their staple foods become “luxury” items. People are already “making do”, and the screws keep getting tightened. For a family the fact that milk and bread have gone up 25% is a big deal. A very big deal. People who work hard should expect to be able to afford the food that they have previously been able to, not have their standard of living squashed. It is all very well to say “screw Fonterra” by not buying the product, but isn’t vocalising your displeasure also legitimate?

Butter is a traditional New Zealand staple food. It is energy dense and rich in fat-soluble vitamins.

Your definition of “staple” is purely nutritional, which seems unfairly narrow to me. Wine is a staple in France. Fish is a staple for Inuit. Ghee is a staple for Indians. None of those are absolutely necessary for survival or nutrition but they are integral parts of the cuisine that people prioritise over other foodstuffs.

Butter, meat and eggs were rationed in wartime last century because they were seen as essential foods that had to be apportioned fairly. Your definition of luxury strikes me as mean and inhumane.

Think about those for whom a steep rise in the price of (insert commodity here) is the difference between mild malnutrition and severe malnutrition. You’re talking about a very large part of the world’s population being hit by a “silent Tsunami”.

Of course, if you believed the Herald, you’d think New Zealanders were copping it hard.

Your personal example is admirable, but not everyone is going to have to time to follow it; not without sacrifice, anyway.

I mean, I don’t see you making this argument successfully down at the food bank.

I get that there’s a group, probably still the majority of New Zealanders, who will rub along just fine rediscovering the frugal practises of their forbears. I just want to point out that there is another group for whom this is more than a nuisance.

(Note that I have a roast chicken in the oven this minute, trussed a la Tibby, and am looking forward to it very much).

Look at food consumption in developing countries, as soon as people can afford more meat they start consuming it. That’s not being slaves to conventional wisdom, that’s liking one thing more than another.

sure. i accept that people prefer meat and dairy to beans.

but you’re clouding the issue by focussing on preferences. what i posted about was want versus need. the newspapers are shouting about people being worse off because they’re not able to afford their needs, and how “it’s a problem”.

but the majority can still afford their needs. people don’t have it bad, they’re just whinging because they have to chose something else.

somewhere along the line it became a conventional wisdom that meat and dairy were “staples”, when in fact they’re cheap luxuries. why luxuries? because you don’t need them.

here’s a test for example. eat 250g of butter or cheese every day. or, eat 250g of a single fruit or vegetable a day.

which do you think you can do without? and which do you think will have an adverse effect on your body?

scale that back to normal levels of intake and you’ve identified which is a luxury, and which is a need.

Mate, I’m afraid this strikes me as pretty smug. True, those of us on higher incomes find increased food prices a mere nuisance, but for people at the margin of household economy they are a disaster. Some people will move to making roast chicken a treat, but others will not have chicken at all.

As to when packets and cans and takeaways become normal, the answer is: when as a society we become affluent enough not to have to spend our time cooking, which many people find a chore, no matter how enjoyable we hobbyist cooks say it is. If you worked all the hours God sends at a shithouse job you would probably choose to avoid more tedious labour at the stove if you could too.

The fact that people are going backwards, becoming less affluent, is not something to celebrate, even if it forces people to take up lovely hearty peasant foodie-food.

not so sure that you can make a link between unwillingness to substitute goods and third-world poverty.

I didn’t link them other than to point out the logic of assertion that the key issue of being less able to buy food than previously was one of ‘expectations’.

it’s about the non-elasticity of some preferences when they’re tied to fallacious conventional wisdoms.

To suggest that people prefer meat or cheese to beans because they’re so silly that they think there’s no alternative ignores the evidence that people just plain like meat and dairy more than the alternatives. Look at food consumption in developing countries, as soon as people can afford more meat they start consuming it. That’s not being slaves to conventional wisdom, that’s liking one thing more than another.

Is the argument you’re trying to make that higher food prices aren’t as bad as people are making out because they alternatives aren’t as bad as people think or that they should be adopting these alternatives even if food prices weren’t rising? In either case the key issue of rising food prices is that people’s choices about what they can consume is reduced, even if they lentil munchers already.

I had a flick through and article in today’s Sunday Star Times about a couple of families who were having to change what food they ate in order to make their food budget go further.

I was surprised to read that McDonald’s was off the menu, roast chicken dinners had become a treat, and Mum was cooking and baking more.

This surprised me because this was *normal* for my family growing up. McDonald’s was so rare I remember the huge excitement when a visit to McDonald’s was even discussed, chickens were one of those bonus special things you had every now and then (because chickens weren’t farmed in the numbers they currently are), and my mum cooked and baked because, well, it was more economical.

On the Outer Hebridean Shiant islands, a tiny group of three islets off the Isle of Lewis, archaeological excavations have shown that in the 1680s during a famine residents of the islands often survived off meals consisting solely of limpets – perhaps half the meals consumed for six months of the year. For TEN years in a row.

I’m not sure if I’m suggesting that we should all toughen up, or if we should just all start eating limpet broth. I’m not particularly keen on either option, tell the truth.

@richard, yeah, not so sure that you can make a link between unwillingness to substitute goods and third-world poverty.

the argument isn’t about preferences, it’s about the non-elasticity of some preferences when they’re tied to fallacious conventional wisdoms.

i.e. cheese is good for you, therefore eat cheese and nothing else. the former is partially true (in that cheese isn’t bad for you), while the latter logically proceeds only if you’re an idiot with a dogmatism stuck up your wallet.

I think the key issue is that rising food prices leave people worse off since they can no longer afford all the things they could before. The substitutes foods you note are substitutes but less preferred ones. Ultimately your argument logically leads to the conclusion that there is no poverty in the Philipines just a problem that people have expectations above living tin shack and scavengign from rubbish dumps.

I agree. We have never been big buyers of processed foods so our bills has gone up but not that much. Cheese, I love the stuff but we just use less. I make bread some of the time and really only use butter for baking (still cheaper than buying biscuits or other lunch box snacks) All that, some judicious bulk buying and our own vegie garden and its all do-able. I just wish I had a bigger freezer.